Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 3rd Nov 2008 11:14 UTC, submitted by Dan Warne
Intel APCMag has tested Intel's latest Core i7 processor architecture that does away with the Front Side Bus and replaces it with the company's QuickPath Interconnect and has (back from the dead) hyperthreading. "This month, Intel moves on from the Core microarchitecture to the next generation of processors for mobile, desktop and servers, codenamed Nehalem and officially named the Core i7 family. We've spent a few weeks with Intel's test kit for the new desktop part, codenamed Bloomfield, as well as the new compatible motherboard chipset the X58 Express, codenamed Tylersburg."
Order by: Score:
i7
by Glynser on Mon 3rd Nov 2008 11:36 UTC
Glynser
Member since:
2007-11-29

i7 looks like a mixture between Apple and Microsoft

Reply Score: 2

RE: i7
by Anon on Tue 4th Nov 2008 10:36 UTC in reply to "i7"
Anon Member since:
2006-01-02

LOL

Took me a while to get that one, but yes, it's a slight co-incidence that the next version of Windows is 'Windows 7' and Intel's next chip is the i7.

AMD had the Athlon XP whilst Windows XP was around, now it's Intel's turn eh?

I wonder if there's some bidding war that went between Intel and AMD to get the rights to '7'?

Reply Score: 2

yawn....
by unclefester on Mon 3rd Nov 2008 11:44 UTC
unclefester
Member since:
2007-01-13

Unless your into gaming any post 2005 CPU is more than fast enough (unless you use Vista).

Will this mean that your current Intel MB won't work? At least AMD usually keeps socket compatibility for years. Intel constantly break hardware compatibility for no apparent technical reason.

Reply Score: 1

RE: yawn....
by 3rdalbum on Mon 3rd Nov 2008 12:02 UTC in reply to "yawn...."
3rdalbum Member since:
2008-05-26

Well, the new processor also has a memory controller onboard; they need extra pins for that because you DON'T want all memory accesses to have to go through the CPU core. Apple tried that on one of their computers years ago and it severely hampered performance.

Reply Score: 1

RE: yawn....
by evangs on Mon 3rd Nov 2008 12:26 UTC in reply to "yawn...."
evangs Member since:
2005-07-07

You're ignoring the content creation sector. With consumer grade DSLRs and HD camcorders becoming cheap and commonplace, you're going to find a lot of people who are starting to require a lot more CPU power.

As long as CPU manufacturers keep churning out faster hardware, we'll keep finding new ways to utilize them.

Reply Score: 6

RE: yawn....
by RandomGuy on Mon 3rd Nov 2008 12:35 UTC in reply to "yawn...."
RandomGuy Member since:
2006-07-30

This time there is a technical reason:
They moved the memory controller into the CPU for greater bandwidth, thus requiring more pins. Since the article states they're planning to integrate the GPU with the CPU you should expect the next socket change around 2010-2011.

The performance boost in their benchmarks is actually quite substantial. It remains to be seen how/if this translates into a noticeable performance boost for the average user. But I wouldn't really say it's only for gamers. More performant CPUs bring lots of advantages: faster ripping, rendering, compiling to name just a few. Hell, even Latex takes way too long once my documents get complex enough (>100 pages with lots of pictures which isn't all that complex). This is on a single core @2GHz, granted, but I don't think it's IO bound on even the latest quad systems.
Basically if something takes any noticeable amount of time it's taking too long.

Furthermore faster processors might help increase the popularity of programming languages like python and ruby.

Also, if anybody hasn't read the article yet, do yourself a favor and
use the "print" link right next to the headline.

Reply Score: 5

RE: yawn....
by aldeck on Mon 3rd Nov 2008 12:53 UTC in reply to "yawn...."
aldeck Member since:
2006-12-07

Unless your into gaming any post 2005 CPU is more than fast enough (unless you use Vista).


Yeah, anyway serious people don't need more than a typewriter...

Did you hear of image processing, video processing, music processing, software compilation, 3d rendering, scientific visualisation/research, voice recognition, network servers, the list goes on... Well basically, there are tons of people actually needing cpu's to process things.

Edited 2008-11-03 12:54 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE: yawn....
by dagw on Mon 3rd Nov 2008 14:08 UTC in reply to "yawn...."
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

Unless your into gaming any post 2005 CPU is more than fast enough

Really? I'm looking at getting an i7 system within a couple of month, and games is one of the few areas where my current CPU isn't giving me any problems (if anything a new graphics card would help far more in that area). Processing RAW photos, video editing and some of the stuff I do in MATLAB, those are the areas where my CPU could really use some help. You do realize that computers can be used for things other than games and the internet?

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: yawn....
by evangs on Mon 3rd Nov 2008 14:18 UTC in reply to "RE: yawn...."
evangs Member since:
2005-07-07

You do realize that computers can be used for things other than games and the internet?


And pr0n. Don't forget pr0n.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: yawn....
by Jondice on Mon 3rd Nov 2008 21:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: yawn...."
Jondice Member since:
2006-09-20

Games, internet, and pr0n? A bit redundant, no?

Reply Score: 1

RE: yawn....
by l3v1 on Mon 3rd Nov 2008 14:22 UTC in reply to "yawn...."
l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

Unless your into gaming any post 2005 CPU is more than fast enough (unless you use Vista).


You can't only think in the context of everyday home desktop use. My algorthms will love this one, they can't get enough of cpus and bandwidth ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: yawn....
by Glynser on Mon 3rd Nov 2008 14:27 UTC in reply to "yawn...."
Glynser Member since:
2007-11-29

Still, as of 2008, you can see Splash Screens for seconds, and you have to wait a long time until data is converted from one format to another, etc.

I think there's still lots of room for improvements in performance. Multicore CPUs were already a big leap (you might not have noticed it - but just sit back to an older single core machine, and run some converting task in the background and try to do something else during that time. You will really notice a difference).

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: yawn....
by _txf_ on Mon 3rd Nov 2008 16:05 UTC in reply to "RE: yawn...."
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

Unfortunately, storage tech isn't improving fast enough. Loading apps from disk is limited more by hard disk speed than processor speed hence you will be seeing splash screens for quite a while. Or any other task that involves saving large amounts of data.

Processor intensive tasks such as compiling or converting file formats will see real boosts and according to most accounts i7 with the new motherboard is a beast. According to ars a single quad core top end nehalem processor is equivalent to 2 quad core penryn xeons systems

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: yawn....
by unclefester on Tue 4th Nov 2008 02:49 UTC in reply to "RE: yawn...."
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

Wordperfect 5.1 running on a 486 loaded so quickly that you couldn't read the splash screen. That was 15 years ago!

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: yawn....
by Brendan on Tue 4th Nov 2008 10:42 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: yawn...."
Brendan Member since:
2005-11-16

Hi,

Wordperfect 5.1 running on a 486 loaded so quickly that you couldn't read the splash screen. That was 15 years ago!


Yeah - modern programmers are smart enough to add a "do nothing" delay loop to keep the marketing department happy...

Reply Score: 1

Going it alone
by chekr on Mon 3rd Nov 2008 11:46 UTC
chekr
Member since:
2005-11-05

With IBM, Sun, AMD, NVIDIA and many others working together on HyperTransport I hope that there is good reason why they chose to go it alone on QuickPath rather than NIH.

Edited 2008-11-03 11:47 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE: Going it alone
by Adurbe on Mon 3rd Nov 2008 12:30 UTC in reply to "Going it alone"
Adurbe Member since:
2005-07-06

because they are intel and are big enough that amd and others will be forced to follow

(that is assuming their tech is faster, if it turns out to be half the speed the market will force Intel to u-turn)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Going it alone
by BluenoseJake on Mon 3rd Nov 2008 16:32 UTC in reply to "RE: Going it alone"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

Intel has done it's fair share of following. They came up with their own 64Bit x86 extensions, but MS told them they were going to go with AMD64. So Intel had to adopt AMD64 and they called EMT64.

AMD first integrated the memory controller on their CPUs about 2004. Intel is just getting around to it now. Intel is not always the leader.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Going it alone
by mckill on Mon 3rd Nov 2008 17:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Going it alone"
mckill Member since:
2007-06-12

AMD didn't create or invent on-chip memory controllers, EMT64/AMD64 is nice but that's about it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Going it alone
by BluenoseJake on Mon 3rd Nov 2008 19:54 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Going it alone"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

I didn't say AMD did an integrated memory controller first, I said they did it before Intel. We are talking x86 processors here, not RISC, not Itanium, x86

AMD64 gave us cheap affordable non-Itanic 64Bit processors. That's more than just nice. By forcing Intel to use AMDs extensions, not it's own, MS and AMD created a standard that Intel had to follow. That's 2 cases (and pretty big ones) Throw in hyper transport and dual core chips, and you've got a situation where Intel has been led by it's nose.

We wouldn't even have nice fast Core Duos if it wasn't for AMD punishing Intel with the Athlon XP and the Athlon 64. AMD forced Intel off it's ass and back in the game.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Going it alone
by mckill on Mon 3rd Nov 2008 20:26 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Going it alone"
mckill Member since:
2007-06-12

I still don't consider on-chip memory controller important or innovative, just because you adopt a technology early doesn't make it good.

yes it is good, but being stuck at DDR over DDR2 for a while is also an issue.

Its clear that Intel's strategy has been better than AMDs since Core2 came out regardless of any technology AMD came up with.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Going it alone
by BluenoseJake on Mon 3rd Nov 2008 21:47 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Going it alone"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

"yes it is good, but being stuck at DDR over DDR2 for a while is also an issue."

I'm not sure why? With no frontside bus to worry about, AMD's logic was why introduce the latency. It also allowed people to leverage the ram they already had lying around, making systems more affordable when Intel systems had to make use of DDR2. Ram may not be expensive now, but at the time DDR was much cheaper.

Seemed like a good plan to me.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Going it alone
by BluenoseJake on Mon 3rd Nov 2008 22:27 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Going it alone"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

I never said an onboard memory controller was innovative, I said that AMD did it before Intel, and it made a big difference when they did.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Going it alone
by 0brad0 on Tue 4th Nov 2008 05:42 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Going it alone"
0brad0 Member since:
2007-05-05


Intel has done it's fair share of following. They came up with their own 64Bit x86 extensions, but MS told them they were going to go with AMD64. So Intel had to adopt AMD64 and they called EMT64.


Intel did NOT come up with their own 64bit x86 extensions.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Going it alone
by BluenoseJake on Tue 4th Nov 2008 12:27 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Going it alone"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

I beg to differ.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Going it alone
by phoenix on Wed 5th Nov 2008 04:17 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Going it alone"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

I beg to differ.


Intel's 64-bit CPU was the Itanium, which was supposed to *replace* x86. It used a completely new CPU architecure and instruction set. This was known as IA-64, while 32-bit x86 was called IA-32.

Reply Score: 2

Solid state Drives for Benchmarking
by tyrione on Mon 3rd Nov 2008 12:40 UTC
tyrione
Member since:
2005-11-21

http://www.intel.com/design/flash/nand/mainstream/index.htm

These Intel X25-M are a real waste of benchmarking against, if you have any sense of attempting to provide real-world benchmarks, for the general audience.

...With powerful Native Command Queuing to enable up to 32 concurrent operations, Intel Mainstream SATA SSDs deliver higher input/output per second and throughput performance than other SSDs on the market today - and drastically outperform traditional hard disk drives. ...


Stop skewing your results folks. 99.9% of the consumers for Nehalem will not be deploying these SSD solutions.

Reply Score: 2

Wes Felter Member since:
2005-11-15

Considering how expensive the early i7 systems are, it seems like a waste not to use an SSD. You might as well go all out.

Reply Score: 2

tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

Considering how expensive the early i7 systems are, it seems like a waste not to use an SSD. You might as well go all out.


What's the value in this observation? That logic makes zero sense when your job is to show real-world results. Nehalem will be flooding the market shortly and you won't see the market running out to replace HDD with SSD.

Reply Score: 3

dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

Cosidering how expensive the early i7 systems are, it seems like a waste not to use an SSD. You might as well go all out

i7 isn't really that expensive. They seem to be starting around the same price as the current Core2 Quad Q6700, and the motherboards are only slightly more expensive than equivalent X48 motherboards.

Reply Score: 2

Dryhte Member since:
2008-02-05

Indeed.

And when Shangai launches, the i7 will come down in price as usual, so the 920 should become affordable real soon... and then I'll swap my C2D E6600 for one ;) Yay! more gaming goodness!

Reply Score: 1

FSB-less Atom?
by robinh on Mon 3rd Nov 2008 12:53 UTC
robinh
Member since:
2006-12-19

Does anyone know if / when an FSB-less Atom processor will arrive? From what I understand, this could mean significant power saving on Netbook chips - maybe a good reason to wait for th next generation of EEE PC's?

Reply Score: 1

RE: FSB-less Atom?
by Wes Felter on Tue 4th Nov 2008 02:01 UTC in reply to "FSB-less Atom?"
Wes Felter Member since:
2005-11-15

Moorestown is coming next year.

Reply Score: 2